Buccaneers Could Lose On and Off the Field: Attempt to Reverse Auction TCPA Class Settlement Batted Down by Eleventh Circuit
2 min read
Nov 7, 2017
A leading Plaintiff's TCPA firm filed a class action against the Buccaneers in 2013, arguing certain company faxes violated the TCPA. The faxes in question contained advertisements promoting football ticket sales, and were alleged to have been sent without consent. While the class certification motion was pending in the original class action, one of the plaintiff's attorneys left the firm and moved to another Plaintiff's firm.
A rather entertaining email exchange then ensued between lawyers at this new firm, in which they discussed cutting the original putative class counsel out of a settlement by filing suit with a new class representative and settling at a lower amount, in a plan they themselves described as "Machiavellian." Such attempts to "reverse auction" class settlements are frowned on by federal courts, and largely prevented by case law which gives preference to first-filed class actions.
In 2016, this second firm filed a new TCPA class action against the Buccaneers based on substantially the same facts as the 2013 class action, and shortly thereafter announced a $25 million dollar settlement of the same, an amount far below what the settlement demands had been in the 2013 lawsuit. The 2016 case was filed long after the statute of limitation for the faxes at issue had expired, but as part of the settlement, the Buccaneers declined the penalty by waiving any statute of limitation defense.
Once the 2013 class representatives found out about the new class settlement, they moved to intervene, which was denied by the district court, as the Court decided that all issues could be addressed at a class fairness hearing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the class representatives from the first class action should have been able to intervene in the newly filed class action. The opinion noted that the settlement of the second class action appeared to have been motivated by an attempt to grab attorney's fees instead of securing the best result in a class action.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion continues a clear preference for first-filed class actions and protects the right of putative class members to intervene at an early stage to challenge settlements that may not be in the best interest of the class as a whole. While the opinion focused on the infighting between the various Plaintiff firms, now that the Court has allowed intervention, the Buccaneers face additional hurdles when it comes to settling this class action at a discount.
Topics
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation

Press Release
Oct 20, 2026
Seasoned Litigator Joins Hinshaw's Aviation and Aerospace Team in Chicago

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 19, 2026
Refile, Repeat: Ohio’s Savings Statute Allows for Unlimited Bites of a Time-Barred Claim

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 16, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 ACVL Conference for the Auto Finance Industry

Press Release
Oct 16, 2026
Nia Binns Re-Appointed Health and Wellness Committee Co-Chair of the BWLA

In The News
Oct 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Explains How Bond Request Spurred AG Settlement in Paramount Merger

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 15, 2026
OCC Releases Debanking Report on Largest Banks; CFPB Announces Follow-On Initiative

In The News
Oct 14, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Contribute Rhode Island Chapter in ABA Legal Malpractice Survey



